Archive for August, 2009

Just as the structure of the entire epistle remains uncertain, the structure of 5:1-6 remains a matter for debate. It is understandable that the exegesis of the pericope has led to a variety of structural opinions. In future posts I will be responding to many points found within these proposed structures. To this end it is necessary to provide the two major structures that have been proposed by modern scholarship.[1] In addition I will also mention the observations that will direct our own exegesis and the emerging tripartite framework that will be developed later.

The traditional arrangement of the passage is a two-fold division. The first portion announces and illustrates the “coming miseries” of the rich men (vv. 1-3). The second portion then describes the incriminating actions of the rich that led to their miseries (vv. 4-6). A modified version of the traditional structure keeps the same two-fold division but views v. 2 as a description of themiseries, v. 3d as the first reason for the coming miseries, v. 4 as an illustration, and v. 5 as either the continuation of v. 3d or the second charge. The outlines are as follows:

Announcement of miseries (v. 1)

Rotted Wealth (vv. 2-3a)

Witness and testimony of rust (v. 3b,c)

Worthlessness of tre asuring (v. 3d)

Reasons for miseries

Withholding wages (v. 4)

Living luxuriously (v. 5)

Murdering the righteous(v. 6)

OR

Announcement of miseries (v.1)

Description of miseries (v. 2)

Reasons for miseries

Hoarding treasure (v.3d, [v.5])

Illustration (v.4)

[Luxuriously living (v.5)]

Murdering the righteous (v.6)

A second structure frames the passage into a list of accusations leveled on the rich. The number of charges is varied depending on whether one chooses to delineate v. 5 as a separate accusation or as part of the accusation in v. 4. The general outline would appear as follows:

Announcement of miseries (v. 1)

Accusations

Hoarding (vv. 2-3)

Withholding (v. 4, [v. 5])

[Living luxuriously (v. 5)]

Murdering (v. 6)

Three initial observations direct our own investigation. First, the various objects that turn against the rich, such as the rust in v. 3 and the wages and harvesters in v. 4 pique my interest for possible connections and resulting implications of these objects as accusers. Second, the similar eschatological phrases of vv. 3 and 5 guide us to ask questions about the function of eschatological imagery. Third, the concluding phrase of v. 6 seems to be out of place, or at the least, anti-climactic. I am concerned then, to discover how this phrase connects with the rest of the passage.

These three observations are mentioned here only to foreshadow the issues that influence the tripartite view that emerges from my examination. I hold to an arrangement that has three sections of accusations (echoing the third outline above). Each section is composed of three parts: an accusation, an ironical twist of judgment and punishment, and an eschatological statement of folly. As I examine the passage, this three-part framework will come into view more clearly and key issues will find their appropriate place within the structure.

Before I move into a detailed analysis of the particular text, it is necessary to define my understanding of irony and folly. Irony, as defined by Leland Ryken, is an “incongruity or discrepancy.”[2] Ryken, further defines three types of literary irony:

Dramatic irony occurs when a reader knows more about what is happening than characters in a story do. Verbal irony occurs when a writer states something but means exactly the opposite. Irony of situation occurs when a situation is the opposite of what is expected or appropriate.[3]

In James 5:1-6, we will be dealing with a combination of dramatic and situational irony. As we will see the “rich men” of the passage are rather ignorant; they expect their actions to produce certain results, when in fact, as James informs us, their conduct sets in motion their downfall. The common definition of folly is “lack of good sense or of normal prudence and foresight; inability to accept or foresee inevitable consequence; actions or conduct so misguided as to result in destruction or tragedy.”[4] I hope to show how James uses folly as a tool in his condemnation of the rich.

[1] Admittedly, the outlines are in simple form. Within each general outline scholars may vary in details. One would need to consult the particular works to see the intricacies of their structure.

Nearly 10 years ago I took a seminar in New Testament Exegetical Methods with David Scholer (God rest his soul). I’ve never been particularly pleased with the term paper itself, but I have not forgotten my basic argument about the structure of James 5:1–6. I’ve decided to start picking around at the paper a decade later and see what I can make out of it. Time, energy, and interest may keep me from going anywhere, but I thought I would use a few blog posts to get the argument out on the table and start playing with it.

Sandra Wheeler writes, “Almost everything about the historical background of this epistle has been disputed.” So, I will not spend much time on those things here, other than to highlight some of the issues that have bearing on the passage at hand. In this first post, I look briefly at some preliminary issues. The posts following this one will begin to look at the structural and exegetical issues where my argument for an Accusation-Irony-Folly structure to James 5:1–6 come into focus.

——————————

Several exegetes maintain a traditional stance and contend that the author of this epistle is the ecclesiastically revered James, the brother of Jesus.[1] The date of composition would then have to be before 62 C.E., the year of James’s execution (cf. Josephus, Ant. 20.197-203). A large number of scholars, however, contend that the Epistle of James is pseudonymous and place its composition at a later date (c. 75-125 C.E.).[2] Recently, a handful of scholars have proposed a layered composition, in which James (or his amanuensis) composed a group of writings or homilies, which were later edited and compiled into an epistle.[3] The date of the original material would of course be prior to James’s death. The date of the final redaction is supposed soon after his death, prior to 70 C.E. For the most part scholars agree that the epistle was composed somewhere in the broad geographic location of Syro-Palestine, but past this general vicinity opinions vary, with specific locations ranging from Caesarea[4] to Antioch.[5]

Despite the continuing debate surrounding the origin of James, we may draw a few conclusions that will help put some perspective on the interpretation of our passage. First, no matter who wrote, redacted, or compiled the epistle, the readers are being directed toward the authority of James, the brother of Jesus.[6] Second, the author/editor of the letter apparently was a Hellenized (or at least Greek-speaking) Jewish Christian.[7] Third, a rural Palestinian location seems to not only follow the majority view but also coheres with the agricultural images found in the epistle (1:9-11; 3:3, 11-12, 17-18; 5:4, 7).

The one historical aspect that plays a critical role in the exposition of 5:1-6 is the question of audience. It is a question not so much concerned with geographic location of the audience; for that, we have stated, can only be assessed in generalities. The passage at hand leads us to consider the socio-economic composition of the Jacobean community. And, as Wheeler has explained, the various views regarding the audience are intertwined with the views regarding style and structure of the epistle.[8] We will, therefore, consider audience and style as one complex concern.

The classic view of Martin Dibelius has reigned supreme in scholarship for some time. Dibelius is well known for having made popular the idea that James was a part of a rich tradition of paraenetic literature.[9] Eclecticism, discontinuity, use of catchwords, repetition of identical motifs, and general moral application characterize paraenesis, according to Dibelius.[10] The paraenetic nature of James, with its hodge-podge of sources and universal appeal does not allow Dibelius to ask about the particular addressees. Rather, he can only deal with “what sort of Christian James expected and wished to read his letter.”[11] Dibelius claims James understood that to be a Christian who was to be poor.[12] Therefore, the paraenetic material was directed to all poor, oppressed, and ill-treated Christians who were in danger of secularization.[13] In this characterization of James’s intended audience, we find the traditional view of the socio-economic level of the early Christians. That is, the early Christians were, by in large, homogeneously restricted to the lower social levels.[14] However, scholarship since Dibelius has begun to question both the sweeping paraenetic characterization of the epistle and the comprehensive description of Christianity as uniformly lower class.

Response to Dibelius has not been completely oppositional. For the most part recent scholarship has only modified Dibelius’s original hypotheses. An interest in epistolary coherency and more precise historical setting has prompted most modifications. Many scholars agree that James contains paraenetic material.[15] But despite the lack of structure associated with paraenetic material, very few exegetes would claim that our passage is without or not itself a part of a definite and coherent structure. A search for structure has led to an abandonment of a strictly paraenetic form as defined by Dibelius. The Epistle of James has been seen more recently as an oral construction,[16] a published literary letter,[17] a piece of Wisdom literature,[18] and/or a diatribal production.[19] This renewed interest in structural unity and coherence has been brought about in large part by an emphasis on purpose and direction. Whereas Dibelius saw no other purpose in the epistle than to further a traditional, universal ethic, most scholars are now proclaiming the writer/editor did indeed have a purpose for the epistle’s production. As well, the writer/editor also had a particular setting from which he was working. Therefore, one may begin to probe deeper into the socio-economic composition of James’s community.

Studies since the time of Dibelius have shown more texture and variety in earliest Christianity than the homogenous group of poor people suggested by Dibelius’s reflection. Christian communities were to be found in several parts of the Roman Empire. It would be difficult to conclude that all primitive Christian communities were socially stratified in the same ways.[20] In fact, E. A. Judge states that membership of the early communities was “drawn from a surprising variety of stations.”[21] He goes so far as to say that early Christianity left the peasantry and slaves “largely untouched.”[22] Though Judge may be swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction, it must be noted that any statement about the social level of James’s addressees must be assessed within a spectrum of early Christianity.

This variety has opened the door for several Jacobean scholars to reconsider the epistle’s audience. Charlie Boggan has concluded that the community of James was comprised of “large portions of working lower if not the higher middle class.”[23] Similarly, Paul Jurkowitz determined that James was calling his community to become “lower middle-class team players.”[24] However, a majority of scholars has maintained a community of predominant poverty. The major difference between the current guild which views an impoverished Jacobean community and the pious-poor community posited by Dibelius is the focus on wealth as an actual problem of concern and not merely a traditional religious association.[25]

Our reading of the epistle in these posts is in line with the view of a generally impoverished Christian community. I agree that not every Christian community was comprised of “the poor,” and therefore I cannot state that piety and poverty are to be equated as a universal early Christian formula (contra Dibelius). However, as we explore 5:1-6, we will see that James has in mind a community that was struggling with both oppression by the upper strata and a desire to become a part of the upper strata.[26]

[5] Perkins, First and Second Peter, James, and Jude, 84. Two notable scholars place the letter in or around Rome: Bo Reicke, The Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, The Anchor Bible, 37 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964), 6; Laws, A Commentary on the Epistle of James, 26. An additional noted work places James outside of Syro-Palestine by setting its composition in Egypt: Francis Xavier Kelly, “Poor and Rich in the Epistle of James,” (Ph.D. diss., Temple University, 1973), 254.

[15] A majority of scholars incorporate paraenesis into their description. J. H. Ropes is one notable exception. He finds paraenesis “far removed from the Epistle of James.” See Ropes, Epistle of St. James, 7.

[19] The nature of the diatribe varies. “prophetic and diatribal” in Luke Timothy Johnson, The Letter of James: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible, v. 37a (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 9. “Hellenistic diatribe” in Ropes, Epistle of St. James, 3. “Therapeutae/Essene inspired indictment of social justice” in Kelly, “Poor and Rich in the Epistle of James,” 254.

[20] cf. Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983), 52; Joseph B. Tyson, A Study of Early Christianity (New York: Macmillan, 1973), 285; L. William Countryman, The Rich Christian in the Church of the Early Empire: Contradictions and Accomodations, Texts and Studies in Religion (New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1980), 33.

[21] Edwin Arthur Judge, The Social Pattern of the Christian Groups in the First Century: Some Prolegomena to the Study of New Testament Ideas of Social Obligation (London: The Tyndale Press, 1960), 54.

After reading this article, I think I am going to let they stand in for the singular more often.

Meanwhile, many great writers — Byron, Austen, Thackeray, Eliot, Dickens, Trollope and more — continued to use they and company as singulars, never mind the grammarians. In fact, so many people now use they in the old singular way that dictionaries and usage guides are taking a critical look at the prohibition against it. R. W. Burchfield, editor of The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage, has written that it’s only a matter of time before this practice becomes standard English: “The process now seems irreversible.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.) already finds the singular they acceptable “even in literary and formal contexts,” but the Usage Panel of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.) isn’t there yet.

It’s funny to me that grammarians, like theological interpreters, are turning to pre-modern sensibilities on some things.

Our house was robbed in broad daylight on Wednesday. I feel violated, frustrated, vulnerable, and pissed!

Started looking through SBL program for interesting sessions. Not sure why; I don’t get to go to many, but I do get to meet with a lot of great people. These conferences are much more enjoyable as an editor.

Finally finished the Wittgenstein biography.

Found out that the class I am teaching next Spring (1) is not Acts-Revelation, but rather the Gospels; and (2) may not make, due to low enrollment. There is still time for shifting preparation gears and for students to enroll.

My body aches more these days.

When was the last time you saw an academic book of theology, biblical studies, or anything really without a subtitle? Are subtitles necessary? We scholarly types sure do love them.